I think we can all say that Oregon and USC probably have the deepest pockets in the Pac12. But even those deep pockets were challenged last year. It's hard to pinpoint exact figures, but based on reported numbers from other PAC12 schools, it's a safe assumption USC lost between $35-$50M last year. They also finished 5-0 and lost in the PAC12 championship. On top of all of that, the PAC12 network and TV deal is a massive revenue barrier to schools, and that was before the UT and OU move. As unhappy as everyone was, pulling the trigger at that point may have been impossible from university leadership perspective.
The funny/troubling part of it all is that the names being reported (Luke, James Franklin, Stoops, etc) are going to see the writing on the wall w/r/t longtime revenue challenges for PAC12 teams. That's not changing, no matter who is control of the program. Yes, USC can and should be better. But can't and won't replicate the results of Pete Carroll but that is what everyone is clamoring for. If I am a guy like LF, I would think really long and hard about going anywhere near a Pac12 school no matter the name. Hell, I think most ACC schools would be equally as challenging. No way am I jumping to FSU / Miami or anyone close with the revenue shortfall they will have versus the Big10 and SEC moving forward. Better or worse, this is all about the $'s....not just what you can get paid, but what your school allows you to spend.
